I'm thinking... Stay on the exherbo mailing list with its 3 posts a month._________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

so will they fix all broken/bad assumption build files (eg stupid 'lets compile and run test program on host' configure check failure because you're cross compiling...)? I remember python and perl being huge pita's in that regard.

but now it can spew out bad assumptions for other platforms at the same time while reserving the right for the devs to tell you to "fuck off"_________________The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter
Great Britain is a republic, with a hereditary president, while the United States is a monarchy with an elective king

but now it can spew out bad assumptions for other platforms at the same time while reserving the right for the devs to tell you to "fuck off"

That's not the case at all. Can you be more specific about to what "spewing" and "bad assumptions" you are referring?

zixnub wrote:

so will they fix all broken/bad assumption build files (eg stupid 'lets compile and run test program on host' configure check failure because you're cross compiling...)? I remember python and perl being huge pita's in that regard.

This is a great point, but is handled very well; Perl works via the perl-cross project. Python2 and Python3 also work seamlessly for the most part. There are issues with a few packages here and there but those are patched and sent upstream to help other distributions. It really does work well._________________No Man is Just a Number!

You mean like the "+/- Lines" stat on Commits by author? And what do commits matter anyway as long as the system works and is up to date for users?

Almost all communication occurs on IRC, and the channels are very active so I wouldn't read too much into list activity which is reserved for brainstorming so that there is a future record. It's a pretty tight-knit community, so I am suspicious of your "we can't talk to people" claim._________________No Man is Just a Number!

I believe we are actually pretty good at talking to people, but we mostly communicate on irc.

Naib wrote:

but at least we have commits going for us... with no equiv datum to indicate whether it is high or low or pointless. wait, its pointless

I'm not quite sure what is unclear about those stats.
Of course raw commit numbers are hard to compare between projects, as some make bigger commits and other smaller ones, but it should be clear from that page that we are indeed active, with 270 commits per week on average over the last 32 weeks.

wait, what, paludis doesn't even check the correctness of the downloaded tarballs? How inherently broken is that crap?_________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

wait, what, paludis doesn't even check the correctness of the downloaded tarballs? How inherently broken is that crap?

Not currently, but patches for good ideas are of course welcome. I look forward to your contribution.

I am curious about your assertion that it is "inherently broken" because there are two separate things that "correctness" is supposed to address and neither are really that big of a deal:

(1) corrupted tarball on download:

This is a failsafe because gzip/bzip2/xz will certainly abort. Whenever a corrupt download occurs there is simply a failure to unpack. This is the most common case.

(2) Malicious tarballs:

There are far easier ways to compromise a system than this. For that matter why not just compromise the git/rsync stream which is downloading any checksums? My question to you is: does portage reliably protect against malicious tarballs? I would argue not(see the devmanual), specifically: "At the moment repoman doesn't check if the Manifest is already signed, so others are able to "unsign" your package later." Even worse, all repoman does is ensure the user is using the same (possibly already compromised!) tarball as the dev who commits it. So the cases where portage protects you are severely limited. Nonetheless, I look forward to your patch. When Exherbo implements a solution it will be a proper technical solution to this problem, not one with obvious workarounds.

Are you dismissing all the technical progress that this distribution has made because of a hand-picked feature which you claim is the end-all be-all of a distribution and completely determines whether an entire distribution is crap? That doesn't seem intellectually honest to me. _________________No Man is Just a Number!

wait, what, paludis doesn't even check the correctness of the downloaded tarballs? How inherently broken is that crap?

Not currently, but patches for good ideas are of course welcome. I look forward to your contribution.

I am curious about your assertion that it is "inherently broken" because there are two separate things that "correctness" is supposed to address and neither are really that big of a deal:

(1) corrupted tarball on download:

This is a failsafe because gzip/bzip2/xz will certainly abort. Whenever a corrupt download occurs there is simply a failure to unpack. This is the most common case.

(2) Malicious tarballs:

There are far easier ways to compromise a system than this. For that matter why not just compromise the git/rsync stream which is downloading any checksums? My question to you is: does portage reliably protect against malicious tarballs? I would argue not(see the devmanual), specifically: "At the moment repoman doesn't check if the Manifest is already signed, so others are able to "unsign" your package later." Even worse, all repoman does is ensure the user is using the same (possibly already compromised!) tarball as the dev who commits it. So the cases where portage protects you are severely limited. Nonetheless, I look forward to your patch. When Exherbo implements a solution it will be a proper technical solution to this problem, not one with obvious workarounds.

Are you dismissing all the technical progress that this distribution has made because of a hand-picked feature which you claim is the end-all be-all of a distribution and completely determines whether an entire distribution is crap? That doesn't seem intellectually honest to me.

(3) changed tarballs without change in version numbers. Happens a lot, can introduce some nice confusion. Like 'why doesn't it build', 'why does it crash' or 'why don't the patches apply anymore'. or 'why is X unable to reproduce a bug'.

But seriously, your passive aggressive answer all complete with an attack against portage&gentoo is also a good reason why I would not touch exherbo. The other ones are paludis and ciaranm._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

wait, what, paludis doesn't even check the correctness of the downloaded tarballs? How inherently broken is that crap?

Not currently, but patches for good ideas are of course welcome. I look forward to your contribution.

I am curious about your assertion that it is "inherently broken" because there are two separate things that "correctness" is supposed to address and neither are really that big of a deal:

(1) corrupted tarball on download:

This is a failsafe because gzip/bzip2/xz will certainly abort. Whenever a corrupt download occurs there is simply a failure to unpack. This is the most common case.

(2) Malicious tarballs:

There are far easier ways to compromise a system than this. For that matter why not just compromise the git/rsync stream which is downloading any checksums? My question to you is: does portage reliably protect against malicious tarballs? I would argue not(see the devmanual), specifically: "At the moment repoman doesn't check if the Manifest is already signed, so others are able to "unsign" your package later." Even worse, all repoman does is ensure the user is using the same (possibly already compromised!) tarball as the dev who commits it. So the cases where portage protects you are severely limited. Nonetheless, I look forward to your patch. When Exherbo implements a solution it will be a proper technical solution to this problem, not one with obvious workarounds.

Are you dismissing all the technical progress that this distribution has made because of a hand-picked feature which you claim is the end-all be-all of a distribution and completely determines whether an entire distribution is crap? That doesn't seem intellectually honest to me.

(3) changed tarballs without change in version numbers. Happens a lot, can introduce some nice confusion. Like 'why doesn't it build', 'why does it crash' or 'why don't the patches apply anymore'. or 'why is X unable to reproduce a bug'.

But seriously, your passive aggressive answer all complete with an attack against portage&gentoo is also a good reason why I would not touch exherbo.

(3) is a good point, one which I forgot to consider. We haven't had too many problems because of this, but it is something that needs to be addressed, you're absolutely right. However it is not a very good reason to write off an entire distribution.

It is passive aggressive and "attacking" to comment that I dislike a technical solution implemented by a piece of software? Nowhere did I mention that gentoo was a bad operating system (I did not mention gentoo at all in fact) or that portage was a bad package manager. Rather I made a fair argument that I didn't think the portage approach really is a technically correct solution for the problem at hand.

Furthermore, my remark "Patches Welcome" is one of the hallmarks of open source software: if you think a feature is important (and are not just using it as a way to grandstand) one of the best ways is to write a patch. The exchange is often used in a joking manner even:

Specifics please. This is a little annoying -- you just criticized my characterization of a portage feature (which was entirely technical) but proceed to dismiss an entire piece of software out of hand with no justification in the next breath? That's a little bit hypocritical don't you think._________________No Man is Just a Number!

Just like paludis, that spams you with 'information' so hard, that it is very, very cumbersome to extract the useful information out of the noise. That it makes use of c++ (which isn't bad in itself, just too fragile for my taste) is not something that increases my interest in this piece of software. Lastly, I have read enough email threads starring ciaranm and some others who then went to exherbo that I feel no inclination to touch that distribution. Ever. Yes, I know, he is pretty silent nowadays. Does not change a thing from my POV.

And yes, that was 'passive agressive' too.

In short: I dislike paludis. I am not willing to deal with people I regard as toxic and exherbo offers nothing that I need or desire._________________Study finds stunning lack of racial, gender, and economic diversity among middle-class white males

Just like paludis, that spams you with 'information' so hard, that it is very, very cumbersome to extract the useful information out of the noise. That it makes use of c++ (which isn't bad in itself, just too fragile for my taste) is not something that increases my interest in this piece of software. Lastly, I have read enough email threads starring ciaranm and some others who then went to exherbo that I feel no inclination to touch that distribution. Ever. Yes, I know, he is pretty silent nowadays. Does not change a thing from my POV.

C++ is "fragile" (whatever that means in a technical sense, I certainly do not know)? It's a compiled language...just about the only thing that can go wrong is your libc or libstdc++ can blow up; in which case you're in big trouble anyway and is probably an indication your distribution developers screwed up big-time.

If we're doing a comparison of package managers here it's pretty clear that python is more "fragile" than C++.

And too verbose? It tells you the error and how it came to the error; I much prefer knowing exactly what went wrong than having to try to guess or narrow down the cause manually.

edit: forgot to mention something

Quote:

And yes, that was 'passive agressive' too.

You have a very different definition of passive aggressive than anyone I have encountered.

Quote:

In short: I dislike paludis. I am not willing to deal with people I regard as toxic and exherbo offers nothing that I need or desire.

Your loss; there are a myriad of technical things that exherbo offers which are useful to anyone who likes the traditional gentoo philosophy. One (or a few, even) developers out of the 60-80 people who contribute to the overall distribution is a pretty bad reason imo to give up technical progress, but it's your loss to make._________________No Man is Just a Number!

This is a nice innovation. Well, cross-compile was always there but streamline the stack and make integrated it's a big step for mankind.

There are many situations where I would like to use this but I haven't set it up yet. At first it looks somewhat difficult.

I will read more how they are implementing it.

It's really not so hard, but some things are still in flux. My understanding is that as of recently you can now generate multiarch binary packages which is pretty cool. Come check it out _________________No Man is Just a Number!

But seriously, your passive aggressive answer all complete with […]. The other ones are paludis and ciaranm.

If you dislike the distribution's only pkgmanager that's a showstopper, I guess - but why do you care so much about the people involved in a project?
It's not like you have to talk to ciaranm to type 'paludis -i foo' or whatever into your shell.